Evanston, IL Mayor Tisdahl is ... delusional

[GarandFan]

I can think of no other word than delusional to describe the views of this woman (emphases mine).

 

Also, city attorney Grant Farrar is being disingenuous. Chicago and Evanston ARE indeed in favor of national regulation, including as a federal ban on semiauto firearms. "Disingenuous" is a nice way of saying that Farrar is a liar.

 

If Tisdahl thinks that Heller was so murky ... I suggest that she clean her glasses.

 

From Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

The second amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in

case of confrontation."

 

 

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/possible-changes-to-firearm-ban-will-not-affect-northwestern-s-private-rules-1.2139729

 

 

Possible changes to firearm ban will not affect Northwestern’s private rules

The Daily Northwestern

By Grace Johnson

Published: Friday, February 5, 2010

 

Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl is supporting her southern counterpart as the city of Chicago prepares to defend its ban on civilian firearms in the nation’s highest court. (Chris Kirk/The Daily Northwestern)

 

Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl is supporting her southern counterpart as the city of Chicago prepares to defend its ban on civilian firearms in the nation’s highest court.

 

Chicago’s prohibition on handguns, in place since 1982, is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States when McDonald v. Chicago is heard March 2.

 

A group of city residents, assisted by the National Rifle Association, is challenging the ban based on Second Amendment rights, NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons said.

 

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has publicly supported his city’s stance.

 

Evanston repealed its own handgun ban in August 2008 after the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller ruled in favor of Second Amendment rights for individuals in “federal enclaves.” The Heller decision allowed all citizens, including those not in service to a militia, to own a firearm and use it for traditional purposes, such as self-defense.

 

Parsons said the Heller decision left unclear whether this extends to cities and municipalities.

 

Despite Evanston’s repeal of the ban, Tisdahl supports keeping guns out of the hands of citizens.

 

“Evanston is very interested in limiting handguns and banning handguns,” she said.

 

Evanston city attorneys filed amicus curiae briefs for the case to support Chicago. An amicus curiae brief is filed by an interested party who is not directly involved but wants to add their input, Evanston city attorney Grant Farrar said.

 

“Chicago and Evanston as municipalities are opposed to national regulations,” he said.

 

“They are for the right to locally regulate the possession of firearms and are not in favor of a national standard. That is the way it has always been, and that’s why the Chicago case is so up front right now.”

 

Tisdahl appeared with Daley at a press conference in Washington, D.C. to address the upcoming case during the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

 

“This is critically important for Evanston,” Tisdahl said. “Our young people are dying, and we need to get guns out of the hands of young people and all citizens.”

 

The day after the Supreme Court handed down the Heller decision, the NRA mobilized to support a group of citizens suing the city of Chicago, Parsons said.

 

“We think the government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, no matter where you live,” she said. “We are determined to make that happen.”

 

A handgun ban in Evanston would not affect Northwestern’s campus, Deputy Chief of University Police Daniel McAleer said. The campus is private property owned by a private institution and consequently has its own rules rather than laws for gun control, he said.

 

“The University doesn’t allow students to have firearms on campus or other weapons on campus under any circumstances,” he said.

 

Tisdahl hopes the clarification of the Heller decision would lean toward more gun control rather than less.

 

“The Heller decision was rather murky,” she said. “Hopefully there will be several avenues for gun control advocates to chip away at the decision and manage to regain some local control of weapons.”

[Ol'Coach]

“Hopefully there will be several avenues for gun control advocates to chip away at the decision and manage to regain some local control of weapons.”

 

I can only interpret that to mean, "...chip away at the Constitution"!

 

I don't think so, unless she wants to go the Article V route. Rots o' ruck with that!!!

[Don Gwinn]

Were you able to comment? I couldn't get to a registration page.

[Ol'Coach]

Nope.

 

Same as you.

[GarandFan]

I wrote to the author, instead:

 

Dear Ms. Johnson:

 

Thanks for covering the Chicago handgun ban, its challenge before the Supreme Court, and the potential impact for Evanston and Northwestern. The issue will certainly be big news moving forward.

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to address a couple things from your letter; things that are not as they appear.

 

1) Although NRA has name recognition, they aren't bringing this case. The Supreme Court declined to hear their separate case, but decided to hear the one brought by Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, on behalf of plaintiffs. Your references to NRA in regard to this case are very misleading, and make readers think this is "NRA v Chicago." It's not.

 

2) Mayor Tisdahl was quoted as saying things such as "we need to get guns out of the hands of all citizens." As the journalist communicating this story, it would be appropriate, at least, to question whether she has such authority under the constitution. In fact, her ability to do so is precisely what this case is challenging. And she is clearly moving forward with the mindset that the Heller decision doesn't exist ... the one that stated "the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." People argue with increasing effectiveness that the right applies to Evanston, and to Northwestern's campus as well ... but you don't mention that.

 

3) City attorney Grant Ferrar was quoted as saying "Chicago and Evanston are opposed to national regulations." Really? Don't you, as a journalist, question that statement? Don't you know that Chicago and Evanston routinely call on the US congress to enact bans on various firearms ... bans that are national regulations and would apply to all the US? That you would not even mention this glaring discrepancy is shocking.

 

Again, I appreciate your coverage of this issue. But in the future, it's my sincere hope that you would approach these opportunities with a critical eye and an objective mind. It's what's missing from the article that diminishes its quality.

 

Best regards,

 

[Don Gwinn]

I'm glad you did. I put up on WindyCitizen with comments to that effect, more or less.

[GarandFan]

It's time-consuming, but it behooves us to set these folks straight.

 

The other day, a law-oriented article in the Wall Street Journal mentioned "state's rights" in the context of the 10th amendment. I promptly wrote the author on the difference between rights and powers, and he wrote back, thanking me for pointing out his error, and stating he'd changed the article.

[Ashrak]

“Chicago and Evanston as municipalities are opposed to national regulations,” he said.

 

“Chicago and Evanston as municipalities are opposed to national regulations The Constitution,” he said.

 

There, fixed it with honesty.